Driving a car on public roads is not an inalienable right bestowed upon us by our creator not to be infringed by our government. Defending oneself with the use of a firearm is, as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

So, NO, I would not agree to national restrictions on firearm ownership through the guise of a national training requirement for ownership. I will not agree to any further erosion of my rights, in fact I demand the ones already taken be returned to me.

There is no correlation between Brady rankings and homicides caused by firearms. The Brady ranking is a point system introduced by the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" to measure the strength of state gun laws using a variety of criteria: http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategu...scriptions?s=1

Legislation should not be based on placating an emotional public at an opportune time to win votes, but instead on sound science. According to all the science and sociological data available to us at this time, reducing income disparity and improving conditions for the poorest of Americans would strongly affect the rate of gun violence. Strengthening gun laws, even the "sensible" ones it seems, will not.

Before the GCA 1968, this kind of stuff did not happen...The worst school mass killing was in 1927,,,and it was by a BOMB not a shooting...I challange you to find a school shooting prior to the GCA1968? If you find one, tells us all about it OK?

That's a bit broad, I can think of one without even looking...Charles Whitman at the University of Texas 1966. I'd imagine there are others. "This kind of stuff", spree/mass killing, most certainly happened before 1968 and will continue to happen, regardless of the method used.

I am old (over 65) and I will state, I do not remember anthing like this prior to teh GCA68..I looked up your Whitman guy, yep, that was pre GCA68, However, I was Out-of-country at the time that happened. BTW: the University of TX is a "weapons free zone" bet if you check, it was back then too.

GCA68 would not have prevented Whitman, and did not prevent Newtown, CT..even the CT AWB and mag limits did not prevent Newtown.

I do not care about extended mags for pistols holding 30+ rounds or 100rd mags for ARs, to me theyre more of a novelty item. If the gun came from the factory with 15 or 17 then thats the limit it ought to be. ARs were made in the first place to accept 20 rd mags. 30 rounders came as a request from troops trying to keep up with the nva and the vc back in nam so i dont know about those. I am not okay with being forced to use reduced capacity mags at a limit that they get to set.

I'm 68 now and have been a gun owner for 58 of those years. I'm also an Infantry combat vet.

1. I will have NO ONE tell me that I cannot sell my private property without involving a third party ... license holder.

2. I don't need ANY firearms course. I know I'm smarter than an area Chief of Police (now a State Liason for Gun Safety Deptartment head or some such BS) who shot himself in the hand while cleaning his personal weapon at home.

3. If a gun show promoter wants to ban non-dealer sales, FINE ... it's his venue!

4. If the government wants to ban non-dealer sales, NO.

5. We have enough GUN laws already. We need a means of identifying and then denying firearms to mentally unstable individuals. What we have works fairly well; let's see if we can improve the data base.

That comment about some people wanting to buy below the radar and those people being the ones who should probably be watched was a snotty swipe at best. I have bought from dealers and non-dealers. I personally don't care about "paper". But I know some upstanding folks who do and that's their priviledge.

That's my 2 cents. I know I'm a hard case on gun rights and I'm not by nature inclined to compromise just to appear to be reasonable. If compromise is so important, I demand that the gun grabbers do the compromising ... otherwise, leave the table and don't come back until you have something to offer ME!

Special training! Heck no. I feel I shouldnt have had to pay for a course and then throw the state another $100 for a permit now!
You got to be kidding right! The anti's would make the course so hard and expensive that only the politicians could own guns!!NO NO & NO!

OK, let's see some common-sense, reasonable rules for gun control come from the other side, such as :

Concealed-carry permits be valid across all state lines, in order to prevent crimes on interstate travelers.
A NICS check be performed on all private sales at gun shows, or by a local sheriff on request. No FFL is needed for private transfers.
Require locked storage in a cabinet or safe of all unloaded firearms in the home. Your self- or home-defense piece is exempt.

That's all the gun control I've give you. Now, let's see some common-sense, reasonable proposals for dealing with the mentally ill, criminals, and those on psychoactive drugs, in order to prevent mass shootings.

I think we need to look at this as a negotiation, which it is. What will you give, to get something in return?

I would put FFL NICS checks for private sales/transfers on the table. In return, I would expect something "reasonable", like more protection for travelers passing through ANY state, like getting diverted/stuck in NYC airport.

There is no correlation between Brady rankings and homicides caused by firearms.

Don't fall into the terminology trap. You have two serious errors in that one simple sentence.

First, the firearms don't "cause" homicides. The firearm may be the tool, just as an axe or a hammer or a knife or an automobile may be the tool, but the firearms are not the cause. The cause is the person who aims the firearm and pulls the trigger.

Second, don't allow "them" to inflate their statistics. "Homicide" means the killing of a human being. Statistics on "homicides" with firearms include all homicides using firearms. In addition to "murders," this also includes suicides, lawful shootings by police officers where the result is the death of the perpetrator, and lawful self defense with a firearm where the result is the death of the perpetrator.

I am old (over 65) and I will state, I do not remember anthing like this prior to teh GCA68..I looked up your Whitman guy, yep, that was pre GCA68, However, I was Out-of-country at the time that happened. BTW: the University of TX is a "weapons free zone" bet if you check, it was back then too.

I don't think it was then, and if it was they bent the rules into a pretzel. Whitman was initially slowed down and contained by "civilians" pinning him down with privately-owned hunting rifles until the police could muster a coherent response. In those days municipal police departments didn't all have dedicated SWAT teams and highly trained snipers.

I want to make one comment about your post. You suggested a NICS check on all sales at gun shows. I'm in agreement. I don't see why that venue is any different from purchasing from an FFL. Same check for the same transaction...sounds fine to me. I also like your other suggestions as well.

But I do want to comment on no checks whatsoever on FTF transactions. When I sell a handgun in my state of Kentucky, I ask to see the buyer's KY drivers license to make sure I can legally sell the gun to them. I also have a bill of sale that has a statement the buyer reads and signs that states that they have assured me they are legally able to purchase the gun. In addition, I write down a driver's license number or their CCW license number on my copy of the bill of sale. I assure them that the document will never see the light of day unless a member of law enforcement knocks on my door asking about a gun that used to belong to me that was used in a crime. I tell them I do these things to do my best to keep guns out of hands that are legally not able to own them. So far, NO ONE I've sold to has found that unreasonable.

I do these things because I am a responsible gun owner who wants to do what I can to make certain my gun does not fall into the hands of someone who, by law, is not supposed to have it. Since I live within a few miles of Tennessee, you don't know how many times I've had people try to talk me into an interstate FTF deal without involving an FFL. I always remind them it's a felony and I do not intend to go to prison or lose my right to own firearms. In EVERY case, the TN resident has been unwilling to comply and has hung up. I've also had women calling me asking me questions about the gun I have for sale with the man whispering questions in the background. I've never sold to any of those persons.

I bring these stories up to illustrate that FTF sales, although many here will say is their right, puts guns into the hands of some people who legally can't, and probably shouldn't own them. I'm sure many will condemn my conditions of sale and say they wouldn't buy from me, but guess what, it's my gun and I'll do as I please with it. And I will do my best to never sell it to someone I think may use it for nefarious purposes.

To sum up, it would be nice if all guns sales would go through the NICS check. Yeah, it would add a few dollars to each transaction. But I have one friend who's an FFL who transfers every gun for $10 and another local FFL who will do it for a "big bag of dog food" (his words exactly), which he then donates to the local animal shelter. If a transfer was required, trust me, those who charged exorbitant fees would find themselves doing no transfers and would soon adjust their fees downward.

I am disappointed by most of what I've read on the few gun forums I frequent regarding solutions to some of the tragedies we've experienced lately. I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.

I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.

Yes. Yes there is. I would pass a federal request that each state enable a type of local "civil militia." I use militia loosely because I'm not talking about citizens who are to be called up to fight a war. I'm talking about local and state governments accepting volunteers to pass a thorough background check. Then the state or local LEO agency provides free training. Then the "civil militiaman" has not only the right, but the responsibility to carry a firearm with him at all times. No arrest powers, only the expectation to use force to protect the lives of others. Everyone else will be allowed CCW permits, but whatever restriction the state wants to apply is fine. Local governments and schools will be required to certify or hire a certain percentage of "militiamen" (or women), much like firearm competent affirmative action. These members will be required to attend annual (or semi-annual) training, provided free of charge by the local LEO agency. This is my version of gun control that I want to see.

We've tried being reasonable and reasonable didn't work. And I resent those who are willing to surrender the ownership of 30 round magazines as long as they are able to keep their 20 round magazines. If we accept and surrender the 30 round magazines, sooner or later, we will be asked to accept and surrender the 20 round magazines. The goal is not to restrict the number of rounds in a magazine, the goal is to eliminate magazines. The same applies to the other points of "reasonable". Some people are being less than smart in believing reasonable will work.

This is why firearms owners will be left out of the process. We go from one extreme to the other amongst ourselves. How are we going to convince the law makers of anything? Something with new restrictions is going to be proposed and possibly pass based on popular desires. So if compromise is on the horizon I'd figure out the least restrictive changes. Hopefully like 90 percent of what is proposed in Congress it won't pass. I hope not.

OK, let's see some common-sense, reasonable rules for gun control come from the other side, such as :

Concealed-carry permits be valid across all state lines, in order to prevent crimes on interstate travelers.
A NICS check be performed on all private sales at gun shows, or by a local sheriff on request. No FFL is needed for private transfers.
Require locked storage in a cabinet or safe of all unloaded firearms in the home. Your self- or home-defense piece is exempt.

That's all the gun control I've give you. Now, let's see some common-sense, reasonable proposals for dealing with the mentally ill, criminals, and those on psychoactive drugs, in order to prevent mass shootings.

I like those. I'll add:
Minimum 20 extra years for use of a firearm in a crime.
Minimum 20 years for illegally selling a firearm to a criminal.

Minimum 20 extra years for use of a firearm in a crime.
Minimum 20 years for illegally selling a firearm to a criminal.

We need to be careful with blanket regulations like that.

For example, if I'm wrongly accused of shoplifting and happen to be carrying at the time, that could be a real problem for me. What if I sell a gun privately to someone who gives no indication of being a criminal? Do I deserve to spend a significant portion of my life in prison?

It's well-meaning on the surface, but in practice, it has the potential to be very problematic. This is how things like the Lautenberg amendment create so many problems.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

I am disappointed by most of what I've read on the few gun forums I frequent regarding solutions to some of the tragedies we've experienced lately. I am in total agreement that gun control won't keep criminals from obtaining and using guns. But I do not agree that just because that statement is true, we should absolve ourselves from trying to provide positive suggestions to help alleviate the problem. To do so seems uncaring, irresponsible, and certainly paints a bad picture of gun right advocates in the public's eyes. And right now, that's exactly what they're wanting to see.

I have guns and I want to keep my guns to be able to protect myself, my family, and those I may be around if the next criminal or lunatic opens fire. But I am also willing to jump through a few more hoops if it might make our society a little safer.

well said and I agree with you 100%. I guess I find it a little disappointing that when we gun owners talk about 'sensible' gun laws we either tout apathy or we espouse the idea that jumping through those extra hoops is somehow eroding our gun rights. If you can still get a gun but close those loop holes I think this is a good thing imo

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.